Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lakhvindra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27642) on 20 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27642]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7998/2023
Lakhvindra Singh S/o Sh. Jaghar Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/
o Ward No.4, Jandwala Sikhan, Tehsil Sangaria, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None Present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Sangaria
3. District Hanumangarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 420, 465, 468 and
472 of IPC
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of 13.06.2023
impugned order
2. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application
and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant of
anticipatory bail.
[2025:RJ-JD:27642] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7998/2023]
4. I have perused the material available on record. The
offences involved in case are triable by a Court of Magistrate, for
which the provisions contained under Section 41 and 41A of the
CrPC are applicable mutatis mutandis and the judgment rendered
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar [AIR 2014 SC 2756] applies squarely in the present
case, where custodial investigation would not be required.
6. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on
27.06.2023 restraining his arrest in the present case, whereafter
around two years have lapsed and the petitioner is enjoying the
said protection since then and he has not misused the liberty
during this prolonged period as no report in this regard has been
received by this court. Thus, in light of the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs.
State of Dehli (Criminal Appeal No.360/2022) reported in
2022/INSC/275, and considering the over all facts and
circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the
benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall
affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court
refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of
the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have
been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail,
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
[2025:RJ-JD:27642] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7998/2023]
with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned
Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or any police officer, and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without
previous permission of the court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
128-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
